HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN 01.09.2018 CC-WMinutes of Meeting of the
Governing Body of the
City of Georgetown, Texas
Tuesday, January 9, 2018
The Georgetown City Council will meet on Tuesday, January 9, 2018 at 4:00 PM at the Council Chambers, at 101
E. 7" St., Georgetown, Texas
The city of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you
require assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reasonable
assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. Please contact the City Secretary's
Office, at least three (3) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or City Hall at 113 East 8t'
Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711.
Mayor Ross called the meeting to order at 4:00 PM. All Councilmembers were in attendance. Mayor Dale Ross,
Anna Eby, Councilmember District 1, Valerie Nicholson, Councilmember District 2, John Hesser, Councilmember
District 3, Steve Fought, Councilmember District 4, Ty Gipson, Councilmember District 5, Rachael Jonrowe,
Councilmember District 6, and Tommy Gonzalez, Councilmember District 7 were in attendance.
Policy Development/Review Workshop — Call to order at 4:00 PM
A. Review of Grace Heritage Center Operating Agreement -- Laurie Brewer, Assistant City Manager
Assistant City Manager, Laurie Brewer, spoke on the Grace Heritage Center Operating Agreement. She
said that this is the last year of a 3 year agreement with Grace Heritage. She said she would be reviewing
suggestions made by the Council for possible long term plans. Brewer noted that Council had asked staff
to bring the topic back to them after the recent building rehabilitation and construction. Brewer explained
that because of certain provisions in the lease agreement, it was best to bring the topic back to Council now,
instead of later, in case it is necessary to provide adequate notice.
Brewer provided a map of the location. She said the presentation would cover background and history, the
current lease agreement and options.
Background/History
• Grace Episcopal Church was built ca. 1881, and belonged to the congregation until 1992
■ The City of Georgetown acquired Grace Heritage Center in 1992
• The City and Georgetown Heritage Society partnered to move the structure and develop the
property at 811 South Main Street
• City of Georgetown currently owns the facility
Brewer described Georgetown Heritage Society Leases
■ Original Lease — 1994
• Second Lease — 2000
• Third Lease — 2005
• Current Lease expired October 2018
0 3 Year Lease with option to renew for an additional 3 year period at same terms
Brewer spoke on the 2015 Lease Requirements
• The City of Georgetown Shall:
o Maintain the exterior of the structure
o Maintain the interior, including HVAC and plumbing
o Provide first right of negotiation to GHS/Preservation Georgetown if the City intends to
transfer ownership
• Preservation Georgetown Shall'
o Pay $3900 in rent and maintain insurance
o Provide quarterly and annual reporting
o Provide exhibition, instructional, and meeting space
• Minimum hours open — Thursday -Friday 9-5, Sunday 1-4
• Operational during downtown special events
• Hold minimum of six public events per year related to history, tourism or culture
• Provide historic brochures, publications and booklets to visitors
• Be allowed to rent out property for meetings and events
Brewer spoke on the current status and consideration
• Previous Council direction was to discuss long term options for the facility
o Renovations complete
o Currently within 180 day period to provide notice if the Council wished to terminate on
October 31, 2018
Brewer described the Downtown Function and Concept Plan from 1992
• Grace Heritage Center will serve the following roles
o Provide office space for GHS
o House the GHS archives
o Serve as education and research center
o Function as arrival and departure point for tours
o Provide visitor information and public meeting space
o Serve as a special presentation center
o Be staffed by GHS volunteers
She next described the Downtown Purpose
Consider whether the previous plan meets current Council goals
• Functionality in the Downtown
o Arts and Culture
o Pedestrian traffic
o Economic impact
• "High Priority" designation on historic resource survey
Brewer provided the Council with possible Options and Direction to Staff
• Exercise 3 year renewal option with Preservation Georgetown under the current lease
• Negotiate new terms with Preservation Georgetown
• Issue competitive Request for Proposals for operation of the facility
+ Request proposals or bids for sale of the property
o Subdivide from Founders Park; sale would require election because it is parkland
o Offer PGT first right of negotiation
• Sell the building to be moved
o Subdivide from Founders Park; if land sale, election required
o Offer PGT first right of negotiation
Other options as directed by Council
Brewer noted that the agenda packet contains a copy of the lease, the appraisal district description and the
historic resource survey designation.
Councilmember Hesser asked about the adjacent parking lot and if it was part of the property. Brewer said it
has a different property owner. City Manager, David Morgan, said there is one parking lot not under city
ownership which is being developed as office and retail space. He explained that, in addition, there is a
small parking lot behind the building that is connected with the property.
Councilmember Jonrowe asked about the insurance that PGT pays and the amount of the quarterly
payments. Brewer said she is not sure on the amount of the insurance payments, but that they were
increased in the lease drawn in 2015. She said that GHS was asked to contribute more. Brewer noted that
the City receives $3900 in total payments from the society. Jonrowe asked if a goal has been set to have
them participate through a certain percentage. Brewer said that would be examined with Council direction.
Jonrowe said Preservation Georgetown has taken Council direction to heart and has increased their visibility
and made great efforts. Jonrowe said she would be in support of continuing a lease and fruitful relationship.
Councilmember Fought said that since $418,000 has been spent recently in renovations, he is no longer in
favor of selling the building. He emphasized the importance of making the society responsible for the
burden of maintenance.
Councilmember Gonzalez asked Brewer if there was another useful purpose or market value to the building.
Brewer said she would think that it is best suited for the activities and uses that it currently has.
Councilmember Eby said selling or moving should be off the table. She explained that it is a very good
asset for the City and its citizens. Eby said renewal with new terms would be most appropriate.
Councilmember Hesser asked if the Preservation is compliant with the lease. Brewer said they have
missed a few reports because of office staff difficulties they were experiencing, but are coming around.
Morgan said staff could establish regular maintenance.
Hesser suggested doing an RFP to determine if there is an opportunity for the building that the City is not
aware of.
Mayor Ross asked about the hours of operations. He noted that it would be 19 hours a week plus special
events. Ross said the costs of operation should be examined.
Councilmember Gonzalez said he recalls the Preservation discussing doing some fund raising. He asked
about the results. Brewer said she is not aware of any fund raising activities. Morgan agreed. Ross said
the original lease term burdened the City with maintenance and the City did not keep it up. He explained
that bringing the building up to speed was necessary because of the inaction of the City. He said it should
be determined and clarified who bares what in expenses.
Nicholson said she wants to see rebrand specifics and how they mesh with the lease agreement.
Jonrowe asked if Saturday was the normal day for weddings. Brewer confirmed.
Mayor Ross summarized.
Selling off table
Renewal coming up
Different percentage of maintenance costs
Possible alternative uses — RFP
Morgan said options can be reviewed with Council and conversation with Preservation Georgetown
B. Presentation on Interim Municipal Utility District (MUD) Policy and discussion on potential revisions -- Wayne
Reed, Assistant City Manager
Assistant City Manager, Wayne Reed, provided a presentation and discussion on the City's Municipal Utility
District (MUD) Policy. He said that he had provided handouts to the Council on the dais which contain the
same information as his Power Point presentation, but will aid the Council in seeing the information more
easily. Reed said that it is time for the City to sharpen the saw regarding the MUD Policy.
Reed said the purpose of the presentation was because staff is seeking direction from Council on desired
updates to the City's Interim Municipal Utility District (MUD) Policy based upon practice and lessons learned
since the policy was adopted in 2014. He explained that one of the Council strategies had been to create
Comprehensive Annexation and MUD strategy.
Reed recognized the many staff members who had contributed to this presentation.
• David Morgan, Wayne Reed, Laurie Brewer, Jim Briggs and Jack Daly — City Manager's Office
• Charlie McNabb — City Attorney's Office
• Sofia Nelson — Planning Department
• Wesley Wright — Systems Engineering Department
• Kimberly Garrett — Parks and Recreation Department
• Chief John Sullivan — Fire Department
Purpose of MUDs
• A governmental agency
• Authorized by the Texas Constitution and regulated
by Chapters 54 and 49 of the Texas Water Code.
• Governed by elected Board of Directors
• A taxing entity
• Different StakE
G �PatWa
xws
Purpose of a MUD is to...
• Serve a public use and benefit
• Supplement and not supplant municipal services
• Expand transportation and commerce
• Provide needed funding to finance transportation, water,
wastewater, stormwater, parks, drainage, etc
• Promote the health, safety, and general welfare of residents,
employers, employees, and consumers in the district and
the general public
11i�111'
A map and timeline diagram of the Georgetown MUDs from 2004 through 2017 were shown and described.
Reed said that most were out of City MUDS and Hillwood was the first In -City MUD.
Reed spoke on the background of the Interim MUD Policy and provided maps for explanation.
Background on Interim MUD Policy
• 2004-2014... City received several requests for urban
level developments outside of city limits
- Mostly west of Georgetown
- Shortage of buildable lots was increasing pressure
- Requests were for locations without utility services and were
distant from existing infrastructure
• Council sought to understand...
- Implications of population growth in and around Georgetown
- Impact to utilities and future land uses long-term
-- Tools available to improve quality of development
AGEGrOu'lx,AS
Background on MUD Interim Policy
Growth and Population Exercise 2013
Each box represents 1,035 dwelling units
Background on Interim MUD Policy
• City's Utility Master Plans
— Development pressure
along South San Gabriel
River in ETJ in 2013-2014
— Intent to serve future
development utilities based
on Future Land Use Plan
— Timing was a factor for City
to fund extension of utilities
in near future
AiF Ciac
Background on Interim MUD Policy
• Water Services (GUS & CTSUD)
— Pre -merger issue for urban density level north &
west of Georgetown
— Merger facilitated planning for safe, reliable water
service in more urbanized part of former CTSUD
• Wastewater remains an issue
— Septic — large lot development was the norm
without availability of wastewater service
— Central sewer — enabled land uses
consistent with Future Land Use Plan 14
Potential Issues (2013)
• Advantages
- Eases developer pro -forma
- Possibility of quicker
residential construction
- Indirect benefits of enlarged
retail demand from new
rooftops
- Potential for higher quality
development
- Development with sewer
rather than septic
Disadvantaqes
— Financing burden shifted
to homeowner
— MUDs: political entity
— PIDs: City component unit
• beat -issuing GIWIGI pokeilt,ai
debt to City
- ,iuires City ove
— Urban levels of density in
far flung locations
Other Considerations (2013)
• Locations with strong utilities may not need districts to
provide services
• City needs more residential to drive retail
• Residential development interest not lacking right now
in Georgetown
• If districts continue, a market expectation is set to allow
even more districts
• Lending realities point to further proposals
• Staff burden if district negotiating table opened
- Existing districts renegotiate terms
- Tracking of performance milestones
G toRrEE74W N
Council Direction (2013)
Districts are appropriate in some situations
— In locations that can support urban levels of density
that are not planned in CIP for utility service
— Incentives for:
• Unique, special projects beyond the minimum UDC
standards
• Incentive to snur nroipcts in stprant times
— Regional benefits beyond the district
— Serve as additional option for reimbursement
Ite • Developers not eligible for CIP cost-sharing
Gr,�uc�,r rc;lti;. r8
Interim MUD Policy Criteria
• Policy 1. Threshold Questions - Location
1) If location meets criteria for annexation and is located
within the ultimate wastewater service boundary; and
2) If City can provide water and .wastewater -at a reasonable
cost" and will commence construction within 2years and
"substantially complete'' within 4'/2 yrs
If "no" to 1) and 2) above then Council can create
district if determined to be "feasible, practicable,
[and] necessary for the provisions of services"
76k,
.,.r r��W.N
Interim MUD Policy Criteria
• Policy 1. Threshold Questions - Location
1) If location meets criteria for annexation and is located within
the ultimate wastewater service boundary: and
2) If City can provide water and wastewater "at a reasonable
cost' and will commence construction within 2 years and
"substantially complete" within 41/z yrs
If "Yes" to either 11 or 2) above then Council has
two options:
- Consent to a district by petition submitted by more than 509,6
of the owners and majority of the voters in the district, or
- Commence annexations proceedings
OCW�RC
1,EETO%%.N
Interim MUD Policy Criteria
• Policy 2. Unique Factors
- Conservation subdivision
- Greater tree preservation
- Greenways along rivers or creeks
- Regional trail connections
- Transportation and utility facilities beneficial to the City s
implementation of master plans
• Policy 3. Submit MUD Petition
• Policy 4. Agree to MUD Petition Review Team
G 10R[i670
Ti]fA5
Interim MUD Policy Criteria
• Policy 5. Provision of Public Services
- Require facilities dedicate sites, and/or pay Fire SIP fees to
enhance public services and optimize service delivery
• Policy 6. Address Utility Service Issues
- Require consistency with City's utility master plans
- Require consent for City to be the provider of water sewer, solid
waste. and electric (wherever possible)
- Limit cost-sharing on MUD off-site utility improvements where
necessary that will benefit multiple properties
- Require impact fees to be assessed at time of final plats for ETJ
MUDS and no later than at tune of building permit for in -city MUDS
Interim MUD Policy Criteria
• Policy 7. Debt Issuance
Require a maximum bond issuance amount and Issuance period
(first to last bonds)
- For in -city MUDS, limit debt to 'hard costs associated with on
and of -site water and wastewater and possibly for roads
- For ETJ MUD, allow debt for the same plus parks and trails
facilities open to general public
• Policy 8. Future Annexation of MUD
- Identify a date certain for annexation of the MUD to be
established In creation documents
�JI�1Ri.l I�ri4\
Interim MUD Policy Criteria
Following 2 Policies shall apply to "Unique Factors":
• Policy 9. Exceed minimum UDC Development Stds
- Restrict age-restncted development < 10% of overall residential units
- Prohibit correctional facilities, etc
- Require 20% be identified for nonresidential land uses unless
-- Require at least 30% of proposed commercial/retail land uses be
developed within first 5 years of first building permit
- Require workforce housing
Require public school site and public facility sites if desired
Require higher standards than what is identified in UDC for certain
development standards. such as tree preservation, architectural
ndards, protection of unique features etc
GiUP1Q1 WH
7i.
Interim MUD Policy Criteria
Following 2 Policies shall apply to "Unique Factors":
• Policy 10. Exceed UDC Parkland Requirements
- Require parks open to general public supported by Parks and
Recreation Board
- Require installation and maintenance of park facilities
- Require connections to regional trail network and adjacent uses.
such as schools
- Require regional trail minimum of 10 in width
- Require useable trailheads with off-street parking
- Require financial contributions to regional park facilities
61,llti�r2,A% 11
Interim MUD Policy Criteria
• Policy 11. Transportation Provisions
- Require completion of a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) and
construction of on and off-site improvements
- Require dedication of nght-of-way consistent with UDC
standards and City's Overall Transportation Plan (OTP)
- Require residential subdivisions to be designed with increased
connectivity, reduce cul-de-sacs, short block lengths, additional
stub outs except for conservation subdivisions
4c;sGraWN
IExA1
Practices Past 4 Years
• Policy 1. Location
- City has approved more in -city (4) than out -of -city (1)
27
• Policy 2. Unique Factors
- Greenways along Rivers or Creeks
• Hillwood and Crescent Bluff MUDs to add trails within
neighborhoods as well as along South San Gabriel River, which
will add to trails to be built by Water Oak MUD along river corridor
• Policy 5. Public Services & Safety
- Fire Stations
• Water Oak MUD amendment clarified fire station site dedications
• re SIP fees have been required with certain MUDs
UAL
W
TE
Practices Past 4 Years
• Policy 6. Utilities
- Utility Infrastructure (extend, oversize, and partnerships)
• Crescent Bluff MUD contributed roughly S1 5 million to the SSGI
wastewater line
• Saddle Creek MUD extended wastewater system
• Parmer Ranch MUD to extend wastewater system along Ronald
Reagan Blvd
• Policy 7. Debt
- Bond Maturity and Issuance Period
• City has approved 25 year vs 20 year for bond maturity
A• City has maintained 10 year issuance period in most instances
G, �� tt; Water Oak MUD was provided 20 year issuance period
Practices Past 4 Years
• Policy 7. Debt
- Tax Rate
• Out -of -city MUDS have 50.90 to SO 95%5100 AV tax rates
• In -city MUDs have lower tax rates of about $O 551$100 AV with
Hillwood as one exception (SO 66/5100 AV)
• Hillwood allowed to issue debt for 'hard costs" associated with on
and off-site water/wastewater. roads, and parks and trails
• Policy 8. Annexation
- Provision for future annexation of development
• City has consistently addressed potential for annexation of
districts in the future
Councilmember Gonzalez said it is an important point that Reed made regarding annexation. He explained
that the recent state laws will supersede the MUD agreements. Mayor Ross said it would need to be a
voluntary annexation. Gonzales explained that now MUDs would not be required to become annexed. City
Manager, David Morgan said a policy on MUDs helps financing and bonds. He explained that the City could
offer a lower tax rate and make it attractive to be annexed.
Mayor Ross asked what advantage it is to the City to have an in -city MUD. Reed said the City may not
have intent to extend utilities to the area and the developer would pay for the extension. Morgan said
developers put costs through the MUD to be paid off over a distance of time. Morgan said there are
limitations for the MUDs from the state that limit the risks. He explained that TCEQ, as well as the City
policy, oversee the financial risk and management and are able to limit their debt capacity.
Councilmember Hesser reminded the Council about former MUDs that had been in trouble financially,
asking to be annexed. Morgan said that is a past practice, specifically with Berry Creek, where the City took
over the MUD and purchased the debt and took over the infrastructure. He explained that the infrastructure,
per the policy, is now tied into the City system and built to City standards.
Practices Past 4 Years
• Policy 11. Transportation
- Transportation Infrastructure
• Crescent Bluff MUD to contribute $1 million toward Water Oak
Parkway bridge supplement Water Oak MUD s funding
• Water Oak MUD amendment (2017) clarified requirement to
build all 4 lanes of Water Oak Pkwy and complete the bridge
• Saddle Creek MUD is contributing to arterial that runs through
the development
• Strategic Partnership Agreements
— Sales Tax
• City has required SPA to ensure City collects its sales tax from
future retail development located in out -of -city MUDS
33
iota.
Staff Recommendation
Changes to the Policy will require amending Section
13.10 of the UDC (purpose and conditions):
• Policy 1. Location
-- Revise threshold questions
- In -city MIJDs should be preferred due to recent changes in State
law concerning annexations
• Policy 2. Unique Factors
— No change. Encourage conservation subdivision design ;where
appropriate), greater tree preservation, greenways and trails along
rivers or creeks, and regional transportation and utility faClllli(:S
• See Policies 9 and 10
fI �
Staff Recommendation
• Policy 3. Submit MUD creation petition and info.
- Remove as a policy and require as part of process in UDC
• Policy 4. Cross Departmental MUD Review Team
- Remove as a policy and require as part of process in UDC
• Policy 5. Public Services and Safety
- No change Continue to incorporate fire stations andr'or SIP fee
• Policy 6. Utility Service Issues
- No change. Require extension of utility master plan lines and
granting of easements. continue to require City to be provider of
water, sewer. solid waste. and electric (wherever possible)
�r1uRiJ It.»�.�
n y ,
Staff Recommendation
• Policy 7. Debt
- Bonds Provide up to 25 years for bond maturity and 10 years for
issuance between first and last bond sales
- Tax Rates
• Out -of -city (ETJ) MUDs at $0 90 to SO 95/$100 AV lax rales
• In -city MUDs at max of $0 55/$100 AV
• Allow in -city MUDs to issue debt for -hard costs ' associated with
on and off-site water/wastewater roads, and parks_ and trails
• Policy 8. Future Annexation when in ETJ
- Maintain, but unlikely to be actionable (see Policy 1)
?C.c......
t\1,
Staff Recommendation
• Policy 9. Exceed minimum UDC Development Stds
— Require concurrent PUD application to memorialize standards with
in -city MUDS
— Remove criteria for all MUDs to contain at least 20% nonresidential
land uses, seek consistency with Future Land Use Plan
— Remove criteria for portion of commercial land uses to develop in
first five years of first building permit
— Remove criteria for workforce housing and include criteria for
diversity in housing products
— Evaluate merit of requiring gross impervious cover... less than UDC
— Require higher architectural standards for residential and
nonresidential land uses
[; ecaRCWIIV
Staff Recommendation
• Policy 10. Parkland and Trails
— No change. Continue to require development to exceed parkland
design and development standards in the UDC
• Policy 11. Transportation
— No change Continue to require partnerships on regional
transportation infrastructure consistent with the City's OTP
CtEbil�'iE� f W h
39
asked if this is enforcement. Reed said policy is a guide not a law. Morgan said staff will bring back more
language and detail regarding this.
Councilmember Gonzalez asked if workforce housing would be considered a uniqueness for a MUD. Reed
confirmed. Jonrowe asked staff to look into this further and make it a priority. Ross said that a developer of
a MUD would not be prevented for applying for affordable housing tax credits from the state.
Reed said there is a need to look at impervious cover more carefully. He said there might be an area that
the City would encourage a conservation design, for example He noted that based on the current Land Use
Plan, the City could be encouraging more commercial development, which might not be appropriate for more
landscaping because the City would want to encourage less impervious coverage.
Jonrowe asked if staff has considered looking at this as a canopy issue rather than an impervious cover
issue, such as the City of Hutto. Reed said landscape standards and the tree policy is the same as a
"canopy". He said tree preservation is required in each development as well as meeting the City's
landscape requirements and this makes the "canopy" for the City. Jonrowe said she does not agree.
Reed said that staff would also recommend updating the application fee to cover costs. He said the City's
fee is currently very low. He explained that staff time devoted to processing and negotiations for MUDs is
not well covered with the current fee is $1,550 plus fees for professional and legal staff time, to cover costs
to process the applications. He said that in most cities the minimum fee for a MUD application is closer to
$5,000.00.
Mayor Ross said this is a lot of information with significant changes. He suggested Council draft their
comments or concerns and send them to David Morgan. He said he is concerned with unintended
consequences. Morgan said feedback within the next 30 days would work. Mayor Ross instructed the
Council to get their feedback to Morgan by February 10, 2018.
Councilmember Jonrowe asked to see side by side comparisons of MUDs and developments that have not
asked for MUDs. She said she would like to see things such as total acreage being used, the number of
homes in each of these subdivisions, what the tax rate looks like, the type of housing, the pricing of the
housing, and foreclosures and turn over information to determine if people can afford to live in these houses
that they are buying in these neighborhoods. She said that she wants to make an informed decision.
Morgan said staff will follow up with another workshop for the Council.
Mayor Ross recessed the meeting to Executive Session under Section 551.071, Section 551.072, Section
551.074 and Section 551.087 at 5.00 PM.
Executive Session
In compliance with the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551, Government Code, Vernon's Texas Codes, Annotated, the
items listed below will be discussed in closed session and are subject to action in the regular session.
C. Sec. 551.071: Consultation with Attorney
Advice from attorney about pending or contemplated litigation and other matters on which the attorney has a duty to
advise the City Council, including agenda items
Sec. 551.072 Deliberations about Real Property
- Fire Station 7 Site Consideration
Sec. 551:074: Personnel Matters
City Manager, City Attorney, City Secretary and Municipal Judge: Consideration of the appointment, employment,
evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal
Sec. 551:087: Deliberation Regarding Economic Development Negotiations
- Project Fish
- Project 011ie
- Project Pilates
Adjournment
Mayor Ross adjourned the Workshop meeting to begin the Regular Council Meeting at 6:00 PM.
Approved by the Georgetown City Council on I 3 a -O �
Date
Dale Ross, Mayor
cb�a� "'L-'�
Attest: City Secre